I will be arguing in favor of same sex marriage being legalized in the United States. These are my only rules:
1: Because this is the United States, where we pride ourselves on a separation of church and state, you cannot use religion in your argument.
2: Round one is for accepting the debate and nothing more.
3: Please refrain from mudslinging of any form.
If any of those aren't respected I will ask that you forfeit a turn.

P1- Same-sex Marriage harms nothing.
Same-sex marriage has already been legalized through different means in various states(1). Massachusetts was one of the first states to allow same sex couples to marry. Michigan has put an actual ban on it. One may assume that if same sex marriage is such a bad thing then we could spot a clear difference in favor of Michigan. I will first test this theory with the economy. Michigan has a noticeably higher rate of unemployment(2)(3). Massachusetts outranks Michigan in GDP(4). Michigan has faced a decline in exports, which are a great source of income(5). Mass has seen an increase(6). It is obvious that there are other factors that go to the economy, but according to social conservatives we are better off without same-sex marriage.Michigan has the lowest divorce rate out of any state(7). This suggests very clearly that the integrity of marriage overall hasn't been damaged. Michigan also has a higher rate of violent criminals(8). Though this is a narrow sample, I feel it illustrates my point very well. I invite Con to prove to me that same-sex marriage is causing problems in this country. There are also a myriad of other countries who have legalized these marriages across the world(9). Many of these countries have a higher quality of living than our own in the United States(10). There are also a long list of countries where homosexuality is a crime(11). Countries listed like Pakistan(12), Yemen(13), Uganda(14), Lebanon(15), and many others have a very low quality of life. It seems that acceptance of homosexual relationships correlates to a high standard of life. And that is what is really important when dealing with laws.

Thanks for instigating Pro. Since we have five rounds, I will use this round for my case and will not proceed to rebuttals until the next round.

Determining Marriage

The core part of the debate of the same-sex marriage debate is determining what marriage really is, why it is an institution in the first place, and how changing it will affect society. To understand this institution a bit more, I will provide two public views of what marriage ought to be[1].

The Revisionist View

The revisionist view, which has been increasingly being adopted into society, holds that unifying good of the marital union is the personal fulfillment of the spouses. From this perspective, marriage is solely about love, mutual affection, and romance. The only difference between this union and others is that it holds legal status and is recognized by the state. While that may seem good from the surface, we immediately run into a problem: many relationships exist through love, yet the state does not recognize them. In order for marriage to be regulated, it must have a unique purpose and goal that makes it distinct from all other unions. Although love is essential to marital unions, it is not enough for it to be legally recognized and regulated by the state. Love can exist between friends, yet the state does not recognize friendships. Now we see that the revisionist view of marriage does not hold a legitimate base. It does not provide a purpose for the state to regulate it nor does it promote the common good. If this is not the secular definition of marriage, then what is it really?

The Conjugal View

Aside from the common view, there is another definition, one which has traditionally been used by many governments, which maintains that "marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children."[2] This view holds that a marital union is to promote a common goal. This goal is for two spouses to share a domestic life oriented towards child-bearing and child-rearing. The ends of the mean is procreation, and the children produced are reflective to union at hand. Naturally, only a man and a woman can complete this comprehensive union, which creates a biological unity that fulfills intrinsic procreation. Marriage points couples in that direction, and brings them together in unity that is unlike any other relationship.

This intrinsic link to children is what the government is interested in, for there is no other reason for the government to regulate this union. The state recognizes the good that this union brings, and provides benefits that promote this union. It demonstrates a proper view of what marriage is and what its purpose in society is. Procreation in itself most often largely benefits society through having more workers, scientists, military personnel, entrepreneurs, government laborers, medical staff and overall more people to support the economy and the nation.

The Intent of Marriage

There is a huge amount of evidence that supports the fact that children need both fathers and mothers. A child learns different things from both parents and can be most properly raised by heterosexual couples. The American College of Pediatricians states, "Social scientists in the last 20 years have come to recognize another important resource: the significant effect the marital status of the child's parents has on children. The positive impact of a married mother and father on a child's development has been scientifically verified across all measures of well-being. It is now acknowledged that the married mother-father parent unit significantly and positively impacts how a child will do in every important measure of well-being and maturity."[3] Children raised by heterosexual couples have more healthful measures of educational attainment, physical and mental health, protection from poverty, protection from physical abuse, and even more benefits in varying areas[3]. Marriage not only contains an intrinsic link to procreation but the *best* manner in which a child can be raised. Thus, marriage is about child-bearing and child-raising, of which heterosexual couples are the most efficient sources of doing this. Allowing homosexual couples into this status will be harmful to not only the ideal family structure and to children but to marriage's role in society.

Conclusion

By using logic, we find that the revisionist view makes no sense. It is too broad and doesn't focus on any end goal that will benefit society in a way that the conjugal view aims to do. We must instead align with the traditional view of marriage to protect this purpose and all that is affected by it.

PR1- "The Revisionist View" vs "The Conjugal View"
This idea that marriage has always been between one man and one woman is also a revision of world history. The idea that marriage cannot exist without the need to produce children is one that is easily refuted. By this argument heterosexual couples without the ability to reproduce should not be allowed to marry. This would mean that 15% of males(1) and 6% of females(2) would be barred from marriage. And if this is just about procreation than all of the legal and economic benefits for married couples are completely unnecessary. There is a very long list of benefits and perks that married couples have that civil unions do not(3). Some of these things like housing benefits make sense for supporting a child, but others are based entirely on the loving bond between the two people involved.

PR2- "best manner in which a child can be raised"
There are many studies contradicting the one that Con has given. One study with an exceptionally wide scope found that children of same-sex couples were more happy than those with heterosexual parents(4). Boston University says that the sexual orientation of the parents or parent has much less effect on the life of a child than the person's relationship with the children(6). The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy backs this up(7). Most conservatives turn to one study that I've found by Mark Regnerus. This and others that came after it suffer from flaws and biases(5). Many issues have been found with studies that denounce same-sex parents, even evidence of bribing the people doing the studies(8). And even if homosexual parents were inferior to heterosexual parents, I hope we can all agree that two loving parents are better than letting children be homeless or remain in foster care. Over a fourth of children who go into foster care are abused while in the system(9). This should stand as an excellent reason to allow same-sex coupes to adopt, which the benefits of marriage would allow them to do much easier.

In conclusion, all reasons to view homosexuals' relationships as different from those of heterosexuals are irrational and based more upon emotion and preconceived notions than facts or logic.

Thanks Pro. The last two sources from my last round didn't link correctly, but the fixed sources can be found in the comments section.

R1. Economy

My opponent argues that places where same-sex marriage is legal have better economies, although conceding that there are many factors that impact the economy. Essentially, Pro's argument follows this syllogism:

P1: The economy is better in some areasP2: Same-sex marriage happens to be legal in those areasC1: Same-sex marriage is better for the economy

Immediately we see that this logic is fallacious in nature. The fact that SSM is legal in the isolated examples Pro has provided does not validly follow up to the conclusion that SSM is the cause of economic benefits. The economy is impacted by interest rates, government intervention, currency strength, the environment, and overall economic health[1]. Since few homosexual couples actually marry[2], and only 2% of the population is homosexual[3] (in the US), then any economic benefits would be quite miniscule, and certainly wouldn't affect unemployment, standard of living, etc., as Pro is asserting. Thus, Pro's entire argument for same-sex marriage is false and easily refutable.

R2. Infertile Couples

Heterosexual unions are still of the procreative type whether or not they can act upon that characteristic. Just encouraging these couples to enter into marriage create a likelier chance that procreation will occur, so that it can bring a benefit to society. The state wants to provide a view of what marriage really is, not just as a means to end. For example, if I went out into the forest to hunt for some animals, but came back empty, I would've still considered myself "hunting" regardless of whether or not I was successfful. We see a similar scenario in the American voting age limit, with people required to be 18 or older. Could minors vote efficiently? Sure, but we don't let them. Are some adults immature enough to vote improperly? Yes, but we don't exclude them. The reason for this is that general propositions are made on the connection between the established criteria and the behavior that is desired. And so it is with marriage.

R3. Gay Parenting

My argument isn't that gay parents should not be able to adopt, but that heterosexual parents should be preferred to homosexual ones. I argue that children need both a mother and a father in order to do best in life. Even so, heterosexuals contain the intrinsic link to procreation that make them unique to all other unions.

The Washington Post's article that Pro provided isn't specific about its claim, but just states that children's health and happiness were relatively similar, which begs the question: what is happiness being measured by? How is health better? The sample size of parents in the study add up to 315, which doesn't compare to studies such the one of Regnerus' which sampled 2,988 young adults. Since there is no link to the actual study, but just a news article, with no author or date of publication, I question its existence.

Parents that are opposite genders make different contributions to children which are essential to the growth and learning of them. The American College of Pediatricians admits that, "There are significant innate differences between male and female that are mediated by genes and hormones and go well beyond basic anatomy. These biochemical differences are evident in the development of male and female brain anatomy, psyche, and even learning styles. Consequently, mothers and fathers parent differently and make unique contributions to the overall development of the child."[5] In addition to that, high school graduation rates are lower among kids raised by homosexual parents as opposed to heterosexual parents[4].

Pro states Regerus is unreliable, but just gives a link. The study is quite controversial, so just claiming that he was biased and flawed in his study doesn't necessarily bring much to the table. I'd argue that some who claim kids raised by gay parents are also biased, as that has just as much merit as saying Regnerus was too "anti-gay" to produce something significant.

In sum, the revisionist view is too broad, and can easily be abused. It is better to align with the conjugal view, which is a more logical and accurate depiction of marriage in its true sense.

PR1- Con misunderstands my point. This is not necessarily suggesting that gay marriage effects the economy. This is showing that it is not enough to harm an economy. There is also no harm to the marriage of those in heterosexual relationships. Massachusetts, one of the earliest states to legalize it, has a very low rate of divorce, the lowest in the country, actually. There is no valid argument against something that isn't harming anybody. Even if it just doesn't help as well as something else, it is still not doing harm. This means to illegalize it is frivolous. Not making frivolous laws is what defines a nation as being free.

PR2- An infertile couple is incapable of baring children. Sometimes the parts to do so are literally not there(1). For a woman who has no uterus, should she be allowed to marry? She doesn't have the potential that your conjugal view talks about. She doesn't even have the theoretical potential to carry a child. This completely ruins your line of logic. American law is based upon what can happen, not what looks like it can happen from an outside view.

PR3- If both parents are necessary for perfect parenting, then why are single parents allowed to keep their children? The American College of Pediatricians' article is poorly sourced(2), honestly. 43. Bailey, J. M. Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 46. Vickie M. Mays, et al., "Risk of Psychiatric Disorders among Individuals Reporting Same-sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 91 (June 2001): 933-939. Those are some of the sources for the article. Homosexuality as a sign or illness itself has been long refuted by the psychological community(3).

In conclusion of this segment of the argument, Con has given a list of poor excuses and already refuted arguments.

Having clarified this argument, Pro admits to be contending that anything that doesn't harm the economy or the divorce rates is an argument for something's legalization. This argument proceeds thus: "X is true because there is no proof that X is false". This is a perfect example of the Negative Proof Fallacy[1]. It is fallacious because in can be argued for absolutely anything, such as contending that "gay marriage doesn't affect the trees, so it should be legalized", which is equally as delusive as Pro's argument. It can also be used in the reverse manner: "not legalizing gay marriage doesn't harm the economy or the divorce rates, so it needn't be legalized. This is unfortunate for my opponent because this is the only argument that was made in favor of same-sex marriage, which seriously impairs Pro's ability to fulfill the burden of proof needed in order to win.

2. Infertile Couples

There are several reasons why Pro's arguments do not suffice, but I will give a few to successfully overturn it.

As stated earlier, marriage should not be treated as a means to an end, with procreation as that end. Infertile couples still serve procreative interests, even if they are not actually successful in directly completing the end. Recognizing their union as a marriage encourages norms permanence, exclusivity, and monogamy that serve the interests of children. Setting the public norm shows off an image of what marriage ought to be, and incentivizes it with benefits, to promote this view, which encourages more couples to procreate.

If we were to accept that infertile couples shouldn't be included in marriage, it is unlawful to screen couples for infertility because that is privacy invasion and an abuse of state power. It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and is not a reasonable base for making such a conclusion. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not warrant such a measure, making it a better option.

The same challenge can be levied against any view of marriage. Should revisionists exclude those who aren't really in love, or are emotionally compatible? If mutual fulfillment and love of the spouses is the requirement for marriage, can we guarantee that all marital unions are actually in love or emotionally compatible? If not, then the accusation of infertility becomes a moot point, which makes the revisionist view suffer no more than the conjugal view does.

3. Gay Parenting

Pro asks why single parents are allowed to keep their children if both parents ate necessary for parenting. This question doesn't hold any actual weight because I never stated that same-sex couples should not be able to keep their children, just that they, as a group, are not as good as parents as heterosexual couples. Of course they should be able to keep their kids, just as same-sex couples should be able to keep theirs. This is a straw man and a red herring of my actual argument. Pro has also not yet answered my premise that both parents of opposite sexes offer different things of contribution to children, of which same-sex couples can only provide the qualities of one gender. Pro also goes on to say the ACP claim is poorly sourced, yet sites the same exact article? That's not really a "refutation" in the slightest.

P1: I like to believe that we should decide if something is or is not legal based upon Mill's "Harm Principal." This principal states that if somebody is doing something that we don't like that we have no right to alter their actions through legal action or moral condemnation unless they are actually harming others(1). The only exception to this rule that applies to our society is in the case of children, who cannot marry under normal circumstances anyway. Things should be legalized based upon freedom and that legality is stripped away if it proves to be doing damage to others. Con's argument that its not harming anything doesn't mean it should be legal would allow me to illegalize anything that was not doing an immediate good for society. With Con's logic I could make Family Guy illegal because it isn't helping anybody. One could say that Family Guy makes people happy, and I could tell them that same sex marriage makes people in love with people of the same sex happy.

P2: Con forgets about how many people get married with no intent on raising children. Not all people who get married are trying to have children. Some aren't even having sex(2). Asexuals have no interest in making children but still sometimes marry just for the emotional connection. Could this be what con meant when he was talking about people abusing marriage? If the worst abuse is two people living together, enjoying one another's company, and paying slightly different taxes without the intent of child rearing then I think that we will all be just fine. And if this is the abuse and it cannot be tolerated, do we need to start screening people for intent to bear a child?

P3: Defining marriage as between a man and a woman isn't the only alternative to allowing same-sex marriage. Con keeps referring to marriage based upon love as being a revisionist's view of marriage. This idea of "one man and one woman" is equally revisionist(3). Christianity allows polygamy(4). Many of the Ancient Greeks viewed marriage as an institution for the raising of children as well(5), and fathers usually decided marriage for them and if a woman could not give you children then divorce was just common practice. Revision isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes it's progress.

P4: If Con would not like to take away children from a same-sex couple, they why would he like to take away their social and legal benefits that he feels are in place primarily for raising a child? Con would like to keep something illegal that would help with the raising of children? Though there are definite arguments for biological parents' superiority over equally capable parents who share no blood, there is little to no denying that parents made stable by marriage do a better job(6). Allowing gay marriage could do wonders to apply these benefits to more adopted children.

R1: Con is trying to say that I'm strawmanning him, among the use of other fallacies, when that just isn't true. Con states that same-sex couples are not as good at raising children, that marriage exists to raise children, and marriage existing to better raise children is why people of the same gender should not be allowed to be married. A straw man argument is where one side suggests argument A, then the other party defeats a very altered or somethings completely different that we will call argument B, and suggests that this means that argument A is wrong(7). Red herrings are an issue of relevance(8). Though my points have all been from different angles, the point that gay marriage should be legal has been the relevance. Con also infers that I am pulling facts from the same website I said was flawed just because I used it in my citations. I don't want to insult the credibility of something without showing why I feel it is not credible. As anybody can see, I cited it because I made references to its own citations. I even listed them. And speaking of a straw man argument, on the issue of gay marriage Con says that two people of the same sex aren't as good at parenting, so should not be allowed to marry, but should still be allowed to raise a child. Con can suggest that two biological parents are the best, and may even be very right, but cannot suggest a good reason not to let them marry. Con is yet to tell me who is being harmed by it.

After showing the fallacious nature of Pro's one and only argument for same-sex marriage, Pro still tries to defend this faulty premise. Again, arguing that X is true because there is no evidence that X is false is a logical invalidity, of which is an untenable position and cannot be defended. Even so, Pro tries to use Mill's Harm Principle to maintain this point, but fails because Mill's principle holds that legal actions should not be made simply because we don't like it. This is irrelevant to this argument because not once in this debate have I argued that gay marriage shouldn't be legal "simply because I do not like it", but rather that it is on the side of logic to uphold traditional marriage. Pro also argues that illegalizing gay marriage interferes with freedom but should not be taken seriously because 1) this is a new argument, which goes against the DDO convention that new arguments should not be made in the last round and 2) it doesn't have anything to do with this subtopic, which is supposed to be about "no harms done", which is what Pro has been arguing all along.

What must be made clear here is that arguing that something neutrally impacts society is not an argument for the affirmative. I proved this in the last round, and also showed that it can be applied in reverse. Having shown the absurdity of this argument by showing that it is just as fallacious in vice versa, Pro attempts to catch my arguing that neutral things are an argument for the negative case, which is the exact opposite of what I was proving. By admitting that the premise applied in reverse is absurd, Pro concedes that this argument is fallacious. The fact that something has a neutral impact on society does not mean it should be legalized or illegalized, and cannot be mistaken for an actual argument for either side. I hope that my opponent and the readers understand how faulty this logic is, and does not work. Since this was all of Pro's case, it is impossible for the resolution to be affirmed.

R2. Infertile Couples

Whether married couples do not have children or choose not to have sex is irrelevant to what the institution of marriage is. The government is interested in the comprehensive relationship heterosexuals pursue, and not the means to the end of that relationship. Since procreation brings a benefit to society, and married couples are more likely to engage in sexual intercourse than nonmarried couples[1], encouraging people to enter into this union create more of a chance that procreation to occur, so it can bring a benefit to society (thus serving procreative interests). Here we see that allowing infertile couples to marry is beneficial to society and fulfills the purpose of marriage. The marital union is neither a means to an end nor a result of successful accomplishment of a common goal, but rather the entering into it already pushes forward the purpose the helps society function as it does.

Pro drops my point that screening couples for infertility is an invasion of privacy and abuse of power, thus conceding it.

Pro also drops my point that the revisionist view has noticeable flaws that does not make it any better than the conjugal view even if we were to accept that infertile couples did not qualify for marriage. This is seemingly admitted when stated that some married couples don't have sexual intercourse. If there is no sexual intercourse, it is possible that couples don't have the "deep emotional connection" that is required for marriage. Not all married couples marry or are married for the purpose of a love connection, so this puts a noticeable flaw in the revisionist view which Pro never addressed, thus also conceding.

My opponent plays semantics with the word "revisionist", which is a bad move because up until the last round Pro did not dispute the definitions of the two views I provided, thus accepting them. The attempt to say that conjugal marriage is arguably revisionist has zero relevance to anything, and seems nothing more than an attempt to distract me from the things we were originally arguing. This red herring doesn't work either, and can't be mistaken as legitimate.

What also has gone uncontested is that the revisionist view must have a purpose or goal, and must bring some benefit to society. Otherwise, the government has no interest, and there really is no reason to regulate marriage at all. If this is true, then the whole argument for gay marriage falls apart. This is another serious flaw in Pro's case.

"If Con would not like to take away children from a same-sex couple, they why would he like to take away their social and legal benefits that he feels are in place primarily for raising a child? Con would like to keep something illegal that would help with the raising of children?"

This is a misunderstanding of the benefits of marriage. The benefits do not exist to help children directly, but rather to promote the view of marriage in order to encourage more people to enter into this union so it can bring a benefit to society. It's simple, really.

R3. Parenting

Pro thinks that I am contradicting myself by holding that gay couples should be able to adopt yet not be able to marry. Having argued that heterosexual couples are better parents, it seems best that adopted kids should be preferred to heterosexual couples because of their ability to parent well, but since there are many kids in the adoption system there isn't a reason to deny gay couples the ability to raise a child when there is no other choice besides staying in the adoption service or rotating through foster homes. Pro lacks reasoning when arguing that both kinds of couples as groups are equally good at parenting because of the lack of any explanation as to why. As stated before, straight couples provide children the qualities both genders have to offer, which can't be fully met when both parents are of the same gender. Pro has ignored this more than once, making it hard to fulfill the logical part of this debate.

Conclusion

The affirmative side has made arguments that are fallacious and invalid, which I have proven to be illogical. Marriage must have a purpose, and if there is no purpose then the side of affirmation loses all merit. I have successfully shown upholding traditional marriage to be in the best interest of the state and for society, thus demonstrating that gay marriage is hurtful to this institution and should not be legalized. Judges, vote to negate.

Honestly excellent debate the both of you. varrack, need to work on the adoption argument as it relates to intent of the marriage. It could be equally assumed that same-sex couples entering into marriage intend to adopt as heterosexual couples intend to conceive. As you point out it is not in the states business to ask the heterosexual couple if they intend to conceive, it should be none of the states business if the same-sex couple can biologically conceive when the outcome of the two may still result in parenthood. If either outcome is possible, The state is only penalizing the same-sex couple.

TheMarques, I know where you were trying to go with the economic argument, it's just not very strong. A better argument lies in your points of inequity if the outcomes between each union are similar or better for same-sex. If economic conditions are better for the same-sex couple, more stable, AND providing potentially for child rearing, and the state has the same interest in favoring that Union.

Both of you. The states interest in marriage goes past procreation. Stability and well-being of the citizenry, regardless of children is also a vested interest. If marriage is providing a better quality of life for the individuals involved, it is worth the concideration.

Gay marriage will be legal one day look back in history when people would go on strike in front of the White House for African American rights and everyone thought they were completely wrong for it and today we all live equal and happy why can't two men or two women live together happily
GAY PRIDE

Reasons for voting decision: I discussed the debate in comments. There is no doubt that I agreed before and after with TheMarquis, the only question is if Varrack make a more convincing argument. After a couple reads, I must concede that while still flawed his argument was more convincing.

Reasons for voting decision: This was a close debate. But Con's arguments were better because they were more organized and more detailed. I especially liked how he refuted Pro's No harm argument. Pro's arguments were sourced well with reliable sources. Also at round two Con's sources didn't work but he fixed it later on.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.